Skip to main content

tv   The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  Comedy Central  April 19, 2013 1:00am-1:30am PDT

1:00 am
maybe ou ide i keep forgetting how young our demo is. next week we give this chick a hand. >> as you can see, i don't have any arms. today we're going to be making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. that is how you make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. okay. just like you, i already have a ton of questions. follow me on twitter so we can live chat during the show. i rarely use capital letters. check out our blog at where there is a convenient link to our store. and don't forget to see me on tour. i've been told i'm equally good looking in person. and finally, the cat's out of the bag. i am executive producing a show called brickleberry. variety called it "tiresome and too eager too offend." but that's out of context. the full article was very negative. >> here's this week's spoiler alert. a russian drug cartel invades brickleberry. goodnight. sleep tight. and i will be dreaming of you with all my might. [ music ]
1:01 am
from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york, this is the "daily show" with jon stewart. ( cheers and applause ) captioning sponsored by comedy central >> hello. thank you! you're having kind. welcome the "daily show." my name is jon stewart. we have a fine program. maz, author of "the way of the knife," stuny expoas a on our nation's top spies, chef. as you know, this country has suffered. and of course the continuing scourge of gun violence. along with the terrible stories are some uplifting stories of so many heros that have emerged
1:02 am
from these tragedies so we can take solace that those people are out there and that our nation's leaders are also on the case. >> on wednesday, the senate blocked the most far-reaching gun control legislation in two decades. >> jon: i'm sorry, did i say on the case? i mean kill my soul. >> senators voted down an swp ban. >> and against a ban on high-capacity magazine. >> the u.s. senate has voted down the compromise deal on expanded background checks. the vote was 54 for the extended background checks, 46 against. ( laughter ) >> jon: as to that last one, expanding background checks to cover gun shows and internet sales. only in the united states senate could take something that has 86% support of all americans and an eight-vote majority in the senate itself as a no. that's a no.
1:03 am
did these ( bleep )-- i think that's trademarked by delta gamma. ( laughter ). did-- really? you already read-- gotta tell you. the the internet moves fast! laught ) did these guys pass anything of substance? >> this amendment will ensure that gun owners across the nation do not have their private gun owner information publicly released. >> the yays are 67, the nays are 30. the amendment is agreesed to. >> jon: we can't publish with gun owners live? what am i going to do with my new magazine "guns & addresses"? ( laughter ) look, agree or disagree with that provision, it turns out the only amendment we've within able to contradict is of in the post-newtown world is the first. >> i find it so incredibly ironic that its proponents
1:04 am
thinks these weapons are a problem in the hands of law-abiegd citizens, but apparently see no problem with the same weapons being galorified in hollywood movies or video games, where the game is interactive, violent, and you are literalhooting at people. >> jon: that's one, video games you are not literally shooting at people. ( laughter ) what you're shooting it isaise series of 0s and 1s organized into a two-dimension stall representation of a three-dimensional-- i guess i'm not considering the real-world consequences of checking to see if someone buying a gun on the internet is a convicted felon who moderates a charlie manson message board. "hey, guys, let's not get off topic. you want to talk about 'live with kelly and michael' that's a different board. you have to keep the conversation here manson related." >> in my opinion, adopting
1:05 am
mandatory federal government background checks for purely private transactions between law abiding citizens puts u inexoray on the path for a itself registration. >> it is not currently proposed but if the bill being considered were adopted, it would puttous that path. >> jon: what about the path we are actually on now? i believe it's at the corner of carnage road and bang-bang boulevard. you're saying we can't turn off because the exit ramp might merge into a government registry off ramp that could, if you go far enough down and on, i don't know, stalin avenue or hitler way, or worse the l.i.e., which really, really is bad?
1:06 am
but nothing embodied yesterday's cynical exercise in disingenuous debate more than this next line of argument. >> i believe we should not restrict transactions between law-abiding citizens, especially when we will not prevent such transactions between criminals. >> we ought to recognize that we can't legislator away the evil that is about us. >> people who steal guns do not submit to background checks. >> jon: right! but people who steal guns do not submit to our rules about stealing. ( laughter ). but we still have them. ( laughter ) here's what's so crazy about this-- ( cheers and applause ) the people in our country, the people in our country who spend millions of dollars to get elected to a legislative body known as the senate are making
1:07 am
the argument there's really no point in making laws because criminals are just going to end up breaking them. ( laughter ). hey, man, let me ask you a question, to all the people in the senate-- ( applause ) "do your doors have locks on them?" because my guess is most criminals don't go, "ohey, everybody. locked." ( laughter ) and you know if these senators were consistent in their fundamental assertion that evil cannot be legislatorre legislat, i would disagree with them but i would not have the same disdain for them. there are situation where's the exact same people are much more willing to infringe upon constitutional freedoms through
1:08 am
the power of legislation. >> we need new techniques in the wake of 9/11 in order to protect us. >> it's very important that we continue to give our law enforcement community every tool they need to protect americans. >> the authority given to the f.b.i. is a necessary change in our laws to combat the war on terror. >> the capabilities it needed to detect and deter terrorism inside our borders. >> important tools used to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks. >> the president has a responsibility to use every legal means available to him to get intelligence that he can use to protect american lives. >> jon: i thought that was the whole point. but i guess terror is different. terrorism has been a much greater threat to american safety over all these years. >> in the last 30 years there have been 30,000 to 40,000 gun deaths in the united states per
1:09 am
per year. since 19 be 70 there have been 3400 terror fatalities. >> jon: holy. well, thank god for chris hayes because i'm not good at math. i'm so stupid i still think 54 votes is more than 46. i'm an idiot. but i'm pretty sure that a million is more than 3400. and yet to battle the evil of terror, we started two wars, tortured people, reorganized almost the entire federal government, disallowed the air trafficking of sha52 and sham pd conditioner, and okay'd the robot sky killing of american citizens if warranted by someone. because one american life lost to terror is one too many. which i agree with. but it seems to me we'll move heaven and earth to do whatever it takes to keep weapons from falling into the hands of foreigners who might kill our citizens because apparently we think killing our citizens is
1:10 am
our job. we'll be right back. d
1:11 am
1:12 am
>> jon: welcome back. for more on the gun debate we bring you the first part of a three-part series with john oliver. >> yesterday, americans watched in shock as even watered down gun legislation die on the floor of the senate. but that is exactly where it belongs, according to gun lobbyist of the virginia citizens defense league.
1:13 am
>> the second amendment is sacrosanct. >> you hold thup sign whenever i make a suggestion that you think is infringing upon your second amendment rightses, okay? >> okay. >> assault weapon ban. boom, there it is. increased background checks. really? >> yes. >> just for background checks? >> we don't do background checks for the first amendment. >> okay, so let's just try this one, nice and easy. >> sure. >> a mandatory one-hour waiting period if you buy a gun. >> why-- why-- ( bleep ). >> unless i can see a reason. no, i can't think of anything they support because at the end of the day, none of it works. >> exactly, gun control does not work. what if hypothetically speaking, gun control could work-- which obviously it can't so we know it won't so that's not a problem, but what if it did. >> when was that? >> australia.
1:14 am
yes, australia inspect in 1996, a conservative prime minister john howard instituted sweeping gun control laws following a mass shooting that shocked the nation. so should we be learning from this effective example? of course not. >> i guess if we're going to go to planet x. and say it's not united states, some other planet, different people, different everything, i don't know, yeah, you know, but in the real world with human beings it's not going to work, and gun control isn't going to work. >> unfortunately not tonal is australia actually in the real world. even their aninals can hoist a weapon. who is right about gun control? there was only one way to find out. confront the man responsible. mr. prime minister, let's begin in the formal australian way-- g-day. >> how do you do. >> obviously, gun control doesn't work. it can't work. it will never work. so wow was your scheme a failure? >> well, my scheme was not a failure. we had a massacre at port arthur
1:15 am
17 years ago, and there have been none since. >> zero gun mass cers. hold on. did gun control actually work? >> it stopped one thing. that could also be a statistical anomaly. >> yeah, it was just mass shootings disappeared. >> there were so few of them, whoop-dee-do. >> whoop-dee-do? >> yes their shootings are rare anyhow. >> exactly, they probably barely had a massacre before 1996. >> there were about 13 in the previous 18 years. in the 18 years before port arthur, there were 13 mass shootings. almost one a year. >> i was unaware they had that many. mass being, what, more than two people at a time? >> more than four. >> more than four, okay. >> whoop-dee-do. >> perhaps there were offer non-whoop-dee-do side effects. >> the homicide rate involving the use of guns has declined significantly by factors of up to 50% and 60%, and the
1:16 am
incidence of youth suicides involving guns has declined dramatically. >> whoop-dee-( bleep )-do. suicide with guns went down, zero mass shootings. >> australia still has murder rates and robberies last i checked. >> unless you can get rid of 100% of crime, it's not worth doing at all? >> put it this way, it's illegal to have crack cocaine anywhere in the united states. do you think if somebody really wants it they can get their hands on crack cocaine in america? >> so unless we can completely get rid of drugs, there's no point in having drug laws at all. ( applause ) >> let me think about that for a minute. well, i guess, effectively it doesn't work. >> you can't argue with phillip. even his logic is bulletproof. >> well, let me put it to you this way. there are more drown in
1:17 am
backyards where they have pools. if there are no pools they don't have a drowning in the backyard. the u.s. has a very high number of guns. therefore, there is going to be more chances for somebody to be killed with a gun. >> right. right. >> right. >> right. that's my point. the senate might think living in a society with dramatically reduced gun violence is eye who-dee-do, and people in australia couldn't agree with him more. >> whoop-dee-do. >> whoop-dee-do, mate. >> whoop-dee-do, whatever that means. >> whoop-dee-( bleep )-do!
1:18 am
1:19 am
1:20 am
1:21 am
( cheers applause ) >> jon: welcome back. my guest tonightlitzer prize-winning correspondent for the "new york times." is new book is called "the way of the knife: the cia, a secret army, and a war at the ends of the earth." please welcome to the program, mark mazzetti mazzetti. how are you. nice to see you thp this is "the way of the knife" the c.i.a. and secret army" which i'm guessing is really not so secret anymore. >> not so much. >> jon: how did you get access to this information?
1:22 am
>> it was hard. there were a lot of people who don't want to talk. and there were sources that i had spent a lot of time working who agreed to talk for the book. >> jon: did you use enhanced interrogation eciques? >> i didn't need to ( laughter ). >> jon: they gave up information just through questioning? >> yes. >> jon: ieresting. >> yes. (ghter ). >> jon: you have a have interesting story at the very beginning of the book about somebody whoot in soe trouble over in-- overseas and was referred to by the united states government as a diplomat. >> that's right. >> jon: turns out he's not a come. >kimlomat. >> he worked for the of c.i.a. he was a contractor working for the c.i.a., and in january 2011, he shot two people in pakistan on the street who were trying to rob him. and what happened after that -- >> the only thing that stops a bad guy in pakistan is a good
1:23 am
guy in pakistan. >> gun control. >> j: there you go. ( laughter ). >> he ends up in jail. and what happens after that is weeks of deliberation between-- inside the obama administration about whether to own up to the fact that he worked for the c.i.a. or continue calling him a diplat and stonewall the pakistani government. in the end, they did say he was working for the c.i.a. there was a secret deal that was brokered, and they got him out of the country in a hurry after about $2 million was paid to the families of the victims. >> jon: oh, that's interesting. so a little bit of money that went through there. how did the c.i.a. gain this sort of individualized authority that even the department of defense doesn't have? and how did we create these sort of two separate systems for this kind of overseas terror fighting? >> wel it's-- one of the things they sort of talked about in the book is how basically the
1:24 am
c.i.a. started to look a whole lot like the military and the military is looking a lot like the c.i.a. basically after 9/11, president bush gave the c.i.a. lethal authority and wide authority to go capture and kill people all around the globe. this sets them off on the beginning of some of these secret wars, and it's-- it starts out with a lot of detentions and interrogations, and starting around 2004, 2005, there's a whole lot more drone strikes, targeted killings. >> jon: because they found out about the interrogations and said we should do that. >> well, there was a lot of internal debate inside the bush administration. there was an internal c.i.a. report that chronicled some of the abuses in the c.i.a. prisons. and, obviousl, a lot of congressional scrutiny of the program. and so as that happensthere was a new strategy started to evolve where both republicans and democrats had been cheering some of the targeted killing and
1:25 am
drone strikes. it was something that was more politicallpatable in a way. >> jon: and it was secret, yet, somehow in the gift shop of the c.i.a., this is a secret program, what were they selling? >> they were sellingolf shirt with predators on them. >> jon: predator drones. >> yes. >> jon: even though that was a secret program no one was supposed to know about. >> well, it's a secret gift shop. ( laughter ). they don't just let anyone in but they still-- yeah. >> jon: i did not reali the gift shop itself was secret. >> yes. >> jon: where did you go that? i cannot tell you. how-- have these all developed with any oversight? and is there any conversation between the d.o.d. and c.i.a.? you write that they have separate ki lists. >> so if you look at yemen right now, you have both the pentagon and the c.i.a. are running parallel drone wars with separate kill lists, and under
1:26 am
different authorities. so for the-- and this, also, they answered to different parts of congress who, you know, are trying to do the oversight. so an outsider as a reporter trying to figure out what is the difference, why are there these parallel programs is quite difficult? >> jon: is it like glengarry glenn ross, where they're like, you have to kill more people. the guy who comes in second gets steak knives, third is fired. are they competing with each other? there's an acknowledgment right now i think in the obama administration that the system is way too haphazard. and what has evolved over the last 11-plus years has evolved on the fly, and they're trying to work up on the some sort of, sort of rules, to sort of determine for the future, and as president obama said on this show, we need rules to restrain me, and restrain future presidents from being sort of seduced by secret war.
1:27 am
>> jon: yeah, that was a surprising thing when he said that. stick around for a little bit and we'll talk about what happens with the c.i.a. programs. "the way of the knife." it's on the book shelves right now. mark mazzetti, every
1:28 am
1:29 am